God and Evolution

[exchemist]

Of course not science;there was no "science" then.

Intent?
Not to tell a straight forward story of what
actually happened?
The story could be told honestly, and
better convey the, uh, message, whatever
that might be... could it not?
Better for sure, if some say the thing
is bs since the story is so obvoiusly made up.

No it could not.

You're a literary person. You should, I think, understand the power of stories and drama to convey subtle messages about the human condition. That is what the bible, and the religious ceremonies and observances derived from it, aim to do. And, like other complex works of literature, the bible is susceptible of a variety of interpretations. As with literature, discussing and arguing about these interpretations can itself be a source of valuable insight.

 

[ecco]

I'll take up that challenge.
GodDidIt
Now, do I get a Nobel Prize?

As soon as you come up with an actual explanation, rather than just an agent.

At least take a quick look at a person's religious affiliation before commenting. Then take a moment to consider if the poster is making a sarcastic comment.


BTW: GodDidIt is an actual explanation.

 

[ecco]

The writer of this article is not an Islamic scholar and doesn't appear to have any announced education regarding Islam or religion in general. It looks like he isn't proficient even in the arabic language and is a convert to Islam. He often publishes controversial content on his website and this particular article has major problems with it which are frankly emabarassing..

The translations of the meaning of the Qur'an by Rodwell, Sale, Palmer, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Hilali-Khan and Arberry are all considered poor. All except Sher Ali's, Khalifa's and Hilali-Khan's works are considered extremely poor. Sher Ali's, Khalifa's and Hilali-Khan's are just considered very bad.

So there in the article are listed three qualified translation attempts of the meaning of the Qur'an: Pickthall, Shakir and Yusuf Ali. However, all of these three fail to bring the translation of the meaning to express the fact that the verb in Arabic expresses continuousness which is why none of them can be considered entirely accurate.

First, you dismiss the author and then you state that most translations are considered poor or extremely poor.

I will take your comments into consideration when reading anything by any defender of Koranic writings.

 

[ecco]

The hypocrisy...

Hypocrisy about what?

 

[ecco]

I happen to be of the opinion that GOD, G_d, Allah SWT, YHWH, and any number of designations that signify 'One God' is referring to the same Supreme Being.

Given that holy scripture differs in their pronouncements of what their god did, how do you reconcile the differences? Are you a Bahai?

 

[viole]

I happen to be of the opinion that GOD, G_d, Allah SWT, YHWH, and any number of designations that signify 'One God' is referring to the same Supreme Being.

Does that include Apollo?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

No it could not.

You're a literary person. You should, I think, understand the power of stories and drama to convey subtle messages about the human condition. That is what the bible, and the religious ceremonies and observances derived from it, aim to do. And, like other complex works of literature, the bible is susceptible of a variety of interpretations. As with literature, discussing and arguing about these interpretations can itself be a source of valuable insight.

What is wrong with telling the real story?
That is, assuming that this here god was
around and knew the story.

As for all these interpretations, "insights"?
To what?
Not "god".
It looks far more like an endless source
for dispute and often enough tortuire
and murder, not spiritual insight.

Seriously, what valuable insight is there to
be found in "Noahs ark" or the 6 day poof?

 

[Audie]

Hypocrisy about what?

"Detecting" hypocrisy is about the most tiresome
bit of cant ever.

 

[shunyadragon]

Absolutely. But it's funny how we "randomly" mutated the ability to recognize our need for this.

...Randomness is insufficient

Maybe someone else will respond since you have me, and half the site on ignore.

Careful, Randomness is insufficient, because it does not apply to the outcome of evolution, and like many Christian skeptics of evolution you are misusing randomness. Random only applies to unpredictability of the timing of the outcome of individual events by definition. It DOES NOT apply to the process of evolution, nor the outcome of the chain of cause and effect relationships. You are describing random as a 'cause' as to whether the outcome of the processes of evolution naturally progress or not. It is the Laws of Nature, and in particular the environment that determine the outcome of the process of evolution.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=ran...7j69i59j0l4.8255j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Random - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

The 'method' that determines the outcome of the chain of cause and effect in evolution is determined by the Laws of Nature, and the environment, and the primary 'method' is Natural Selection.'

 

[exchemist]

What is wrong with telling the real story?
That is, assuming that this here god was
around and knew the story.

As for all these interpretations, "insights"?
To what?
Not "god".
It looks far more like an endless source
for dispute and often enough tortuire
and murder, not spiritual insight.

Seriously, what valuable insight is there to
be found in "Noahs ark" or the 6 day poof?

A "6 day poof" sounds like a short-tern gay liaison to me. I don't recall reading anything of that in the bible.

The Genesis myth however does have quite a lot to say to us. It tells of God being the creator of the world, and notably, of Man. It tells of Man being created "in the image" of God, i.e. with a spiritual nature and a capacity for good, and it tells of Man having a personal relationship with God.

Perhaps most importantly of all, it tells of the "Fall", by which Man ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and was thereby changed, acquiring moral knowledge and thus moral responsibility, but at the same time being cursed with a tendency towards evil-doing. This is almost a parable of what happens as we grow up, from infants to adults. There is acquisition of knowledge and responsibility, but also a loss of innocence: a double-edged sword. One can imagine the ancestors of mankind, as their brains grew and they acquired language and thus the capacity for abstract thought, losing the innocence of the other animals, realising when they have done wrong and feeling guilt for the first time. It does not seem such a far-fetched idea to me and it does seem to hold a kind of truth. We read every day now how Man is responsible for damage to nature etc., as a result of his cleverness.

Anyway, all this all sets out the relationships between God, Man and nature and also sets the the scene for the rest of the structure of Jewish and Christian belief. These, it seems to me, are the messages are conveyed by means of the myth of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.

 

[exchemist]

Absolutely. But it's funny how we "randomly" mutated the ability to recognize our need for this.

...Randomness is insufficient

Maybe someone else will respond since you have me, and half the site on ignore.

Of course randomness is insufficient! Have you never heard of "natural selection".

The whole point of Darwin's idea is that it is NOT random: the environment selects.

 

[shmogie]

False. And also indicative of your intellectual lazyness... It took me exactly 3 seconds to find this link. All it took was googling "list of human fossils".

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

Second sentence of the article:
As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare, this overview is not complete



You sharing genetics with your siblings, demonstrates that you and your siblings share biological ancestors. That's what.




Exactly. And the more genetics shared, the closer related.
This is how we can differentiate your biological sibling from your biological cousin.




It's not speculation. DNA mutates and is inherited in that mutated form. Fact.
This means that sharing DNA equals sharing ancestry.



The origins of life is a different area of study.
Evolution address the origins of diversity.



Indeed, because this is about evolution - not about the abiogenesis.

Note the term relatively few. Thousands of fragments equate to a potential population of what ?

How many alleged species do these thousands of fragments represent , over what period of time ?

[ [/QUOTE]

DNA can mutate, no doubt, however, that begs the question, can it mutate to the point that it can ¨jump¨ speciation, then jump further up the classification scale ?

In other words, are there any constraints on these mutations ?

I think you would say no, because of the shared genes. Are there any examples of a population of organisms that can be demonstrated to have had a specific DNA that has recently mutated and can be seen to be evolving into a different species as a result ? Are there intermediary forms identified, and what makes it apparent that these will ultimately result in a viable population ?

The prima facie evidence seems to be that there are shared genes among life forms.

As an example, as I recall, the chimpanzee shares 90% + of itś genes with us.

What evidence is there, other than one viewś logical construct, that this is a priori proof of evolution, where is the smoking gun that locks it down ?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Given that holy scripture differs in their pronouncements of what their god did, how do you reconcile the differences? Are you a Bahai?

Perhaps more of an Anthropological Religionist? I definitely believe in a central Creator, but his followers are complete muck ups.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No it could not.

You're a literary person. You should, I think, understand the power of stories and drama to convey subtle messages about the human condition. That is what the bible, and the religious ceremonies and observances derived from it, aim to do. And, like other complex works of literature, the bible is susceptible of a variety of interpretations. As with literature, discussing and arguing about these interpretations can itself be a source of valuable insight.

However, that ONLY works if you know that you are talking about stories. Too often that is not the position taken by those referring to the Bible, which they see as something far different, and more as literal than literature.

It is a truism that humans make up all sorts of "stories" that help us to make our way in a complex world, this covers much more than just religion. It's a theme that Yuval Noah Harari talks about in his three books (Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century), that let us transition from small family groups, to tribes, and on through the other societal organizations we humans have tried.

 

[Audie]

A "6 day poof" sounds like a short-tern gay liaison to me. I don't recall reading anything of that in the bible.

The Genesis myth however does have quite a lot to say to us. It tells of God being the creator of the world, and notably, of Man. It tells of Man being created "in the image" of God, i.e. with a spiritual nature and a capacity for good, and it tells of Man having a personal relationship with God.

Perhaps most importantly of all, it tells of the "Fall", by which Man ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and was thereby changed, acquiring moral knowledge and thus moral responsibility, but at the same time being cursed with a tendency towards evil-doing. This is almost a parable of what happens as we grow up, from infants to adults. There is acquisition of knowledge and responsibility, but also a loss of innocence: a double-edged sword. One can imagine the ancestors of mankind, as their brains grew and they acquired language and thus the capacity for abstract thought, losing the innocence of the other animals, realising when they have done wrong and feeling guilt for the first time. It does not seem such a far-fetched idea to me and it does seem to hold a kind of truth. We read every day now how Man is responsible for damage to nature etc., as a result of his cleverness.

Anyway, all this all sets out the relationships between God, Man and nature and also sets the the scene for the rest of the structure of Jewish and Christian belief. These, it seems to me, are the messages are conveyed by means of the myth of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.

Come now, you know very well what the 6 day poof is,
and if you think of a shorter more accurate way to say it,
tell me.

Or must I? "in the beginning", God takes six (6) days
to magically poof the universe into existence.

I dont see the utility of lying to make a point, other than
about liars.

Whatever the book my tell about "god", that requires
that there BE a god for it to make sense. FACTS
there, are as always in ye book, not in evidence.
"God" is not in evidence.

Besides which-

Every culture has its ways of instructing on morality
and maturity.

If you could find a clunkier more confusing, less
effective and less efficient way to instruct people
in how to grow up and act decently than this
bible, pope and cathedral stuff, please dont
start preaching it!!

 

[exchemist]

However, that ONLY works if you know that you are talking about stories. Too often that is not the position taken by those referring to the Bible, which they see as something far different, and more as literal than literature.

It is a truism that humans make up all sorts of "stories" that help us to make our way in a complex world, this covers much more than just religion. It's a theme that Yuval Noah Harari talks about in his three books (Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century), that let us transition from small family groups, to tribes, and on through the other societal organizations we humans have tried.

Well, yes, but then intelligent readers of the bible since the dawn of Christianity has been able to discern what should be taken more or less at face value and what needs to be interpreted. Even Origen in 200AD did not take Genesis literally. Biblical exegesis has been a practice followed from the very start.

Harari talks a good game but I'm not wholly convinced by everything he has to say. He makes a bit of a fetish of being an outsider and iconoclast, it seems to me.

I would certainly reject the extreme relativism that would categorise the models of science as "stories" on the same level as historical myth or religious allegory.

 

[1213]

How so?
How so? What do cars have to do with evolution?

It is possible to see evolution in cars also. There is progress in how cars have changed. Is it because of “evolution”, or because people have planned them to be better?

So how is magic more convincing that observable mechanism?

I don’t believe in magic. I also don’t believe in Mother earth, which is nowadays called “evolution”.

 

[1213]

What can I say? Your complete lack of knowledge ...

If you have nothing else than false things to say, I think it would be better to say nothing at all.

 

[Audie]

Well, yes, but then intelligent readers of the bible since the dawn of Christianity has been able to discern what should be taken more or less at face value and what needs to be interpreted. Even Origen in 200AD did not take Genesis literally. Biblical exegesis has been a practice followed from the very start.

Harari talks a good game but I'm not wholly convinced by everything he has to say. He makes a bit of a fetish of being an outsider and iconoclast, it seems to me.

I would certainly reject the extreme relativism that would categorise the models of science as "stories" on the same level as historical myth or religious allegory.

Everyone thinks god helps them with
spiritual-spiritual guidance,
to discern the true meaning.

Someone had an opinion in the year 200,
but he may be as wrong as the next feller.

 

[exchemist]

Come now, you know very well what the 6 day poof is,
and if you think of a shorter more accurate way to say it,
tell me.

Or must I? "in the beginning, God takes six (6) days
to magically poof the universe into existence.

Whatever the book my tell about "god" that requries
that there BE a god for it to make sense. FACTS
there, are as always in ye book, not in evidence.

Every culture has its ways of instructing on morality
and maturity.

If you could find a clunkier more confusing, less
effective and less efficient way to instruct people
in how to grow up and act decently than this
bible, pope and cathedral stuff, please dont
start preaching it!!

Come off it Audie. All I'm doing is pointing out what the allegory of Genesis has to say to a Christian believer. I'm not trying to preach, not least because I am not sure to what extent I buy the whole message myself. I'm simply pointing out it should not be dismissed as just silliness, any more than Macbeth is silly in what it has to say about human ambition.

(As for the "6 day poof", that is just a stupid soundbite reductio ad absurdum of Genesis. You can't expect me to take it seriously as a criticism of anything - apart, that is, from the mind of the speaker. )